Sunday, August 30, 2009

Conspiratorial cabal or not, America is in trouble

Here's a discussion of what the blogger calls a conspiracy theory, but it's not what I mean when I use the term. He calls it The Great Conspiracy but he's simply spelling out some anti-constitutional provisions that are now in place that could threaten American freedoms, and in fact threaten us all bodily, in the near future.

What I mean by conspiracy thinking is wild imaginations that suppose there is an all-powerful human cabal behind all such goings-on, without being able to muster facts in any convincing way to prove it.*

To my mind a governing body that thinks Marxism is a good idea is already as much of a danger to the world as any plotted conspiracy by high-level hidden movers and shakers, and our current administration is Marxist and Fascist both. Who needs the Illuminati?

*This is the point -- I'm hardly incapable of believing in conspiracies but the fact is that the evidence offered is really NOT convincing. They assume too much, they sling around unsupported accusations. The worst write complete word salad in which it's obvious they think they've been giving evidence but it just isn't there. Springmeier doesn't prove anything, he simply asserts it. Schnoebelen writes novelistically which makes it sound like fiction to begin with and detracts from any truth there may be in his reports. I don't know what to make of all this. We've got conspiracies galore these days, explaining the economic disaster, anticipating a murderous outbreak of flu, well, really the vaccinations against the flu, about well-known American public figures plotting against the well-being and even the lives of Americans, about UFOs and whatnot. There's actually better evidence that there is a government conspiracy to hide knowledge of UFOs from the public (they think they're ETs of course; I know they're demons) than there is for the rest of it. It's not in principle beyond the pale, but there is simply no convincing evidence.

How Obama = Hitler

Here's a discussion of what makes Obama's administration like Hitler's. (I can't seem to select out the particular post. It's the one for August 29th).

Friday, August 28, 2009

Mark Dice's approach to the Illuminati

I took a look at Mark Dice's book about the Illuminati at Amazon where you can read a few pages of it. He does a good job of introducing the material, showing he understands where the reader is at, as Springmeier does not, but then he begins his introduction to his argument by saying that people wonder how 9/11 could have happened, or how an economic collapse could happen and so on and so forth.

Well, I don't wonder. I figure it's just the usual, human sin, and I also know these things are God's judgment on the nation, and Dice claims to be a Christian so he should know that too. But he thinks there's something strange enough about such events that we need to look behind the scenes to HUMAN manipulators. I think this is faulty reasoning. I see no need to postulate intentional manipulation of events at all. People being people is enough to explain events. Fallen humanity being greedy or negligent or self-absorbed or vindictive on a small scale can accumulate to large disasters. Satan's work in contributing to such human failings to bring about his own plans is a reasonable assumption too, but Satan doesn't need conscious accomplices in his plots. And the overarching explanation that God is in charge of it all and permits such things as judgment pulls it all together.

Satan can pull off amazing things people alone can't, if God wills it, and if God wills it amazing exactness can be seen in some events (the symbolism involved in the 9/11 targets is fascinating to think about), but human beings just don't have the power or precision of planning that is attributed to them in these conspiracy ideas. The Pentagon was only slightly damaged, the White House was missed altogether as the passengers of the plane defeated the hijackers. Human beings are an imperfect lot. The plans of fallen men as often go astray as hit their target. The TRUE conspirators of 9/11 have been identified as far as I'm concerned.

So I feel no need for a conspiracy theory to explain terrible events. Apparently some people do feel such a need. I'm very impatient with all the conspiracy theories about 9/11 myself. I don't expect our intelligence to be as perfect as apparently some people do. I can easily accept that a Muslim plot to attack our institutions got past our radar, because God has lifted His protection of the nation to that extent and no other explanation is necessary. None of the scenarios I've seen cooked up "prove" that human agents on our side of the WTC plotted this attack. I think it's all ridiculous.

Do I need to know anything more than that God is judging the nation? I really don't think so.

Which isn't to insist that conspiracies couldn't possibly exist. The Muslim conspiracy existed after all. Why isn't that one sufficient? Why must there be a HIDDEN conspiracy? I really don't get it. Any that do exist should be exposed and prosecuted. But the usual conspiracy theories are simply not believable.

So to my mind Mark Dice is off to a bad start in even making this claim that events make no sense without a human plot to explain them, or another human plot than the one we know about. That's already conspiracy-thinking. According to the introduction to his book, he's going to focus a lot on 9/11 and I've got to say I've heard enough silly speculation about that to last me six lifetimes so I have no interest whatever in reading his book.

But I would really really like to see someone write a book that would examine all the claims truly objectively some time and really show the part that human beings played.

Springmeier's book about the 13 "Illuminati" families is pure delusion

After my last post where I simply vent my reaction to this book about the Illuminati I figure I should come back and spell out just what the problem is. The book is Bloodlines of the Illuminati by Fritz Springmeier and I could barely get through the first few paragraphs. The book is advertised as based on years of research and highly documented, although the online version seems to have left off all the documentation.

I'm sure the guy has read a lot but he has no clue how to present his material, how to muster his evidence to prove his point. I suspect that has to be because he can't, he's jumped to conclusions and not followed the evidence he's found. That's what I have to suspect based on the shoddy way he's put together the material.

It starts right out listing the names and discussing them. Jacob Astor is the first on the alphabetical list (why is it alphabetical? If you want to show the interconnectedness of family ties wouldn't you trace them historically rather than alphabetically?):
The original founder of the Astor fortune was John Jacob Astor (1763-1884). John Jacob Astor was born in Walldorf, Duchy of Baden (Germany) from a Jewish bloodline. The Jewish origins have been hidden, and quite a number of various ideas of the Astor’s heritage have been put into circulation by the Astors.
Here's a place where some referencing is needed, perhaps some discussion of his sources. I have no reason to doubt the facts, but when you get into claiming such things as hidden origins the honest reader needs more than your assertion.
John Jacob Astor was a butcher in Walldorf. In 1784, he came to America after a stop over in London, England. Although the story is that he came to America penniless--and that may be true--he soon joined the Masonic Lodge, and within 2-3 years had become the Master of the Holland Lodge No. 8 in N.Y. City.
I don't get the connection. Is being penniless an obstruction to being a Mason? "Although" he came to America penniless, he joined the Masonic lodge. This is a non sequitur ("it does not follow").
(This Holland Lodge is a prominent lodge in that many of its members have good connections to the Illuminati elite. An example of just one Lodge #8 member is Archibald Russell, 1811 - 1871, whose father was President of a real hotbed of Illuminati action for many years: The Royal Society of Edinburgh).
Isn't this the sort of thing this book was written to prove? Illuminati activity here and there? But all he is doing here is baldly asserting some supposed "good connections" to the "Illuminati elite" without a hint as to who they are or why I am to believe they have anything to do with the Illuminati. Then he gives an example which would supposedly back up his assertion, but all it is is another bald assertion: a member's father was "President of a real hotbed of Illuminati action for many years" again not a word about how he knows this, what his sources are, why I should believe him, or even what the Illuminati is and why I should care. This is a very strange way to start out a book that is supposedly intended to PROVE Illuminati connections. Apparently all he's going to do is assert the connections and not prove anything. Does he think his blathering about all these names somehow amounts to evidence?
By 1788, Astor was a master of Masonic lodge#8. This is rather interesting considering Astor could not speak English when he arrived in America, and supposedly was very poor.
Again, is poverty an impediment to Masonic membership or advancement? Shouldn't he be explaining what this means? Also, some people are good at languages and four years is pretty good time for having learned quite a bit. It would be interesting to know how Astor went about learning English. But Springmeier assumes everything, doesn't bother with presenting the relevant facts.
John Jacob Astor was always very famous for being coldhearted, anti-social, “a man who didn’t have charm, wit or grace.” (This quote comes even from a relative of the DuPont family who wrote a sympathetic Biography entitled The Astor Family.) If this man lacked social graces and was so cold, and was so poor during his first years in the U.S., why did he rise to such prominence in Freemasonry? Certainly not because of his social graces. For instance, one time later in life at a meal given for elites, when his hands got dirty at the table he reached over and used the shirt of the man beside him to wipe his hands.
Where's the reference to the mentioned biography? He asks how a man with such a personality could rise so high in Masonry, but how would the reader know? Why is he asking us? Surely somewhere in all the material he read somebody discussed this if it's important. Are social graces necessary to rising in Masonry? How would I know? Why doesn't he discuss this? How are we to understand the incident with the shirt? Was that really a sign of a cold personality? Such a strange story requires better explanation, best a quote from the source of that information. Was it a display of arrogance, truly astonishing arrogance, or a strange idea of a joke perhaps?

Then at the end of the same paragraph we come on this amazing non sequitur:
The original financial break came by carrying out a series of shady and crooked real estate deals in the N.Y. city area.
He goes from discussing the man's "anti-social" personality, which we are supposed to take on his word since he supplies no references, to some unexplained "financial break" based on shady deals, again without a reference to ANYTHING to support it. And it doesn't belong in this paragraph. Anyone who writes like this simply can't be taken seriously.
The next break came when two men who are now known to have been in the Illuminati gave John Jacob Astor a special government privilege. The two men were Pres. Jefferson and Secretary Gallatin--both Illuminati members. The United States government had placed an embargo on all U.S. ships from sailing with goods in 1807. But Astor got special permission from these two men for his ship to sail with its cargo. His ship sailed and made close to a $200,000 profit in that day’s money.
First financial break shady deal, second financial break special government privilege. Not a clue as to the facts in either case, no references, no quotes, just the assertion that it happened as told. Now he's suddently connected with these two "Illuminati members" although there isn't a hint given what that means or how he knows or why anyone should believe him. Likewise he flatly asserts that Astor got this special deal and the insinuation is because they were Illuminati, without the slightest attempt to justify that explanation, no quotes, no discussion, nothing.
Astor strangely profited greatly from the War of 1812, which crippled almost all the other American shippers.
What made it so strange? Does the man get no credit for financial ability? So far all this is nothing but dark insinuations that nefarious actions are afoot without anything to prove it. I suppose he's not even aware he's not supplying evidence, because it's all a complicated fantasy in his own mind and that's all HE needs to be convinced, but the honest reader needs quite a bit more than the conclusions of Springmeier's fantasies.
Astor also worked together with George Clinton, another member of the Illuminati, on land deals. Even at that period in history, British intelligence worked for the Committee of 300 and for the Thirteen Top Families, it is interesting then, that John Coleman who had access as an intelligence agent to secret documents, discovered that the original John Jacob Astor was also a British secret agent. The Thirteen Families have very intimate roles with the American and British intelligence cults.
Another "member of the Illuminati" I'm supposed to take his word for although to this point I haven't a clue what being a member of the Illuminati even means, how he knows this about anybody and so on. I guess there's no such thing as being good at making money, you need the help of the Illuminati, whatever that is, and we'll never find out from THIS book. Oh and Astor was also a secret agent. At least he gives a reference for this, it would be nice though to have the title of the book and a quote or two for support, and then he jumps to the broad statement that the thirteen "Illuminati" families are involved in intelligence "cults" whatever those are. If even half of this is true, it should make fascinating and informative reading, but we'll never find out from this guy. It's all gobbledygook.
Prior to 1817, John Jacob Astor entered into the fur trade and remained the biggest player in the fur trade until he got out of it in 1834. Over the years, he had managed to build up a monopoly. How he managed to push everyone else out is a good question.
See, just another bald assertion, insinuation, accusation. To Springmeier it's a "good question" how Astor got to the top of the fur trading business. Isn't it even POSSIBLE the man had sharp financial abilities? Why MUST there be nefarious plots lurking in the background. This seems to be all Springmeier has, suspicions, that seem to make sense to him but do not amount to evidence for anyone else.
Bear in mind, white people had been trapping furs in the New World for several centuries, and the Indians for who knows how long. Then this guy Astor comes along and in a few years totally owns the whole industry! Again this could only have happened, because the occult power of this Astor family gave them the right.
Prove it, Springmeier, prove it. If it's true it should be a fascinating revelation of known contacts and wheeler-dealer carryings on and whatnot, but all you are giving us is these flat assertions. You believe them, but you are not proving any of them.

The most rational conclusion is that this is your own paranoid fantasy. At the very least you haven't a clue how to write a book and someobody else should write it. At worst you are deluded by your own suspicious nature and imposing your delusions on the reader.

The man became powerfully influential. We know that much anyway without this book. But the book is SUPPOSED to be proving that this was because of shady deals and occult influence and so on and so forth but there isn't ONE clue in any of it that that was so. Sorry. Not one. ALL NOTHING BUT ASSUMPTIONS AND ASSERTIONS, not a shred of proof. I skimmed ahead in the Astor story, I glanced through some of the other stories. It's all the same hodgepodge of insinuation without facts.

Is Mark Dice better? He also writes on the Illuminati. Unfortunately I'm not going to spend the money to buy his books to find out.

If you want me to believe in the reality of Illuminati influence, as opposed to merely the influence of wealthy people whose politics I may happen to dislike, you are going to have to do better than this.

Tuesday, August 25, 2009


So, I thought well maybe after all I should do some looking into this Illuminati thing and related conspiracy stuff. I am writing this post after the briefest of encounters with the material in this arena, a look at the book about "bloodlines" by Fritz Springmeier and a glance at some stuff by David Icke, also a brief comparison of some of their assertions about various personalities with Wikipedia entries on the same people, and although it is very early in my investigations I have little interest in going any further (though I may, who knows) and although my assessment at this admittedly early point may have to be modified down the road, who knows, for the moment my impression is that

THIS STUFF IS ABSOLUTELY INSANE! It's written in such a way the reader hasn't a chance of ever finding out what's a fact and what's not. What are probably facts are all mixed up with bald assertions, wild guesses, speculations and imaginations, insinuations and accusations in an incredible hodgepodge of craziness.

Knowing me, I won't be able to let myself get away with such an assessment because it's based on so little acquaintance with the material, so I'll probably have to read more of this nonsense, but it often happens that my first take on this sort of thing is only confirmed and deepened as I study further. I really don't know what I'm going to do at this point since I already need a break from it and can hardly stand the thought of reading any more. I'm disgusted that anybody thinks such writings qualify as "documented" when that's precisely what is lacking.

Friday, August 21, 2009

Relation of the head covering to Genesis 6

Just a little blurb for a new post at Hidden Glory I titled "Head covering, Long hair, the Watchers and the Nephilim.

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Yet another post on Bohemian Grove, Pt. 5, *Groan*

OK, one more post on the Bohemian Grove. Not that I'm going to say anything new, but here's a particularly blatant example of the same old. I'm just fed up with this kind of nonsense and this is a big fat ad that reaches the height of stupidity, from that same "Cutting Edge" (WAY OVER the edge if you ask me):

This is an ad for a DVD titled Dark Secrets Inside Bohemian Grove, or Order of Death, including two of Alex Jones' films on the Bohemian Grove. It's all based on his ONE brief crashing of the place, in which he got ONE very shaky film shot of the "Cremation of Care" event and NOTHING ELSE while he was there, and yet his ONE brief incursion into the Grove without ANY OTHER CONTACT yielded enough material for TWO films? Must be padded with a lot of extraneous stuff to supply insinuations from his own imagination, and yet it supposedly
Proves Presidents Bush and Clinton, plus officials like Henry Kissinger and Colin Powell, are Satanists!
OH GIVE US A BREAK! Go see the 1981 news video about the place I posted earlier for a much-needed reality check. I just put it at the bottom of this post.
Alex Jones presents his newest film, "The Order of Death", an amazing and horrifying look into the rites and rituals of the modern day descendents of Babylonian mystery cults. "Dark Secrets: Inside the Bohemian Grove" documented the first ever hidden camera incursion into the Grove and the bizzare pagan ritual, the Cremation of Care, practiced by its members, all men, including both Presidents Bush, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Colin Powell, and Henry Kissenger to name but a few.
Bizarre pagan ritual, ha! It's a bunch of aging fraternity boys being entertained with a mock ritual to launch their vacation camp-out in the redwood grove, put on by the THEATRICAL CORE OF THE BOHEMIAN CLUB, WHICH WAS FOUNDED BY A GROUP OF ACTORS. The guests' cares and worries are "put to death" in this mock sacrifice, after which they hoot and holler and guzzle beer like any gang of American guys (as opposed to pagan priests), according to the 1981 news video. Besides, there are plenty of OTHER pictures of the Cremation of Care to be found on a Google Image Search. It's not as if Alex Jones was needed to get us one. It's not all THAT "secret" in other words, but Alex Jones keeps milking his one brief invasion of the grove for a hundred times what it's worth.

Scroll down to the You Tube video of the 1981 news report that SHOWS A PICTURE OF THE CREMATION OF CARE even that far back. Not all THAT secret, is it? All Alex Jones accomplished was to get an inferior shaky shot of the same thing, nothing new! Also, in that same news report someone who DOES know a lot about the Grove event and wrote a book about it is also interviewed, someone who spent a lot more time learning about it than this Alex Jones with his ONE-TIME VERY SHORT experience there. That's ALL he has, that one VERY BRIEF visit in which he got a bad shot of the Cremation of Care, and all the rest of his information is made up out of his own imagination to pad his publications. Nobody should pay good money for that tripe.
"The Order of Death" picks up where "Dark Secrets" leaves off. This new work exposes the connections between the Bohemian Club and Skull and Bones and other occult secret societies. Jones explores the roots of the Grove and its links to occult networks dating back to ancient Egypt and Babylon.
The Skull and Bones is just another fraternity, this one for young Yale students, for the scions of the rich and powerful, just a silly secret club of kid stuff antics with a spooky death theme, that is shared by families with common political interests. Good grief.

The only connection with Bohemian Grove is that the same wealthy families are represented in both places and the entertainment gets into silliness. As for the roots in "occult networks dating back to Egypt and Babylon" all Jones did was assume that big owl statue is more than just a big owl statue to invoke knowledge and wisdom for a bunch of men reliving childhood summer camp, assumed it MUST have pagan connotations, and went looking for anything to prove his own assumption. He tracked down some connections with the meaning of owls in some pagan religions and declared his own findings to be The True Reason for the Cremation of Care rite, no matter WHAT the attendees think. He also made the big mistake of connecting Moloch with the owl, for which Scott Johnson showed there is no evidence, which ought already to blow his case. This is all nothing but a huge imaginative invention with no grounding in reality.
his new film delves deeply into the history of the Grove where powerful men make decisions that affect the world but are completely hidden from public scrutiny. "The Order of Death" details how the Grove has been the backdrop for some of the most earthshattering events in human history including the development of the Starwars program and the Manhattan Project.
Gee whillikers, batman, we gotta go bust this place. Oh puhleeze. When big name politicians get together ANYWHERE we can expect them to be working out events that are going to impact our world. BIG DEAL! If there's a case to be made that information is being kept secret that ought to be made public, none of that requires the specific location of the Bohemian Grove as some special sort of breeding ground for such plans.
"The Order of Death" also features never before seen footage captured by a daring former Grove employee including an astounding look inside the owl worshiped at the Cremation of Care ritual.
Ooo, I bet that's a big surprise! There are descriptions of the inside of this owl to be found online already. I ran across them myself in my researches, and it didn't seem interesting enough to dwell on. It's apparently a big hollow statue. So what? And this refrain that this owl is "worshiped" is utterly ridiculous.
Note: "Cremation of Care" is a know Illuminist Satanic ritual; therefore, Presidents Bush and Clinton and all other American leaders participating in Bohemian Grove are proven to be Satanic!
Woo hoo, boy, that must be a surprise to THEM! Imagine that, participating in this "known Illuminist Satanic ritual" (in which Jones even got it wrong about Moloch and owls) which makes them "Satanic."

AND SOMETHING ELSE THAT NEVER GETS MENTIONED: This summer event hosts at least TWO THOUSAND guests. There's a picture of an enormous number of men sitting at end-to-end tables that are laid out in a semi circle in a clearing, in that same 1981 news video I keep mentioning. They aren't ALL political bigwigs. Are they ALL "Satanic" because they all witness this phony "sacrifice?"

How come this guy Jones isn't being sued for libel? Or is some libel so over the top it's not worth the trouble?

What I'd like to see is a REAL Christian Watchman ministry take this guy down.

Here's that 1981 news report on the Grove:

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

Bohemian Grove pt 4 "Sexual depravity"

I thought this topic was finished. I keep forgetting about the "depraved sexual activities" the members of Bohemian Grove are accused of. Here's what an ad for a book at Cutting Edge Ministries says:
8. Bohemian Grove

The Bohemian Club (founded in 1872) and the Bohemian Grove enlist top male leaders for scandalous and depraved sexual activities. "Every Republican president since Herbert Hoover has belonged. . . Here is a small sampling of some of the prominent members: Stephen Bechtel, Jr. . . Joseph Coors . . . Et al."["Secret Societies and their Members." page 4 of 4.]

Of its near 3000 members, other participants include(d) the Bushes, Richard Nixon, George Schultz, Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, Merv Griffin, Newt Gingrich, Ronald Reagan, Caspar Weinberger, Dick Cheney, Danny Glover and others. ". . .some of the most powerful men on earth doing despicable sexual things . . . nude and semi-nude men worshiping a giant idol of an owl in a deeply occult ritual, and what appeared to be an actual human sacrifice of a burning, screaming white man . . . ."

[And] they choose who will be allowed to run for the high office of president and the vice president of the U.S.A."["Expose of the Bohemian Grove." P.1; 06-05-02]
WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE THAT ANY SUCH THING GOES ON AT BOHEMIAN GROVE AMONG THESE GUESTS? Where are the pictures? There are plenty of pictures of events at the Grove, of men sitting around in ordinary dress. Where is the testimony of others who were there? WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

We know there must be a fair amount of homosexual activity that goes on there, if only because Richard Nixon said so, calling it the faggiest place he'd ever seen or something like that. Well, the Bohemian Club is made up of actors from San Francisco, so it's a good guess there IS a lot of homosexuality there among them and their friends at least. But nobody has yet shown that the big name guests are involved in any of that, the people so many seem to be so intent to smear with SOMETHING, ANYTHING to discredit them.

This utterly ridiculous idea that the theatrics around the "Cremation of Care" are anything close to a "deeply occult ritual" much less an "actual human sacrifice" I've already touched on. Apparently the actor who played the "sacrifice" in some productions did a great job of screaming for his life -- or the recorded sound effects did. If that much is so ridiculously misrepresented I have no doubt the participation of all those big name politicians in "depraved sexual activities" is similarly misrepresented. And I already saw how some of this kind of misrepresentation got manufactured by the book by Cathy O'Brien, who is the subject of my last post. (By the way, didn't someone say she claims to have been inside Bohemian Grove? How did that happen if women aren't allowed there?)

This is irresponsible. This Cutting Edge guy is not a "watchman" this guy is a scandalmonger.

Scott Johnson quotes from Cutting Edge from time to time. Get a clue, Scott Johnson.

I hate having to get into all this fringe stuff, like the Cathy O'Brien book and the Bohemian Grove. I'm obliged to as long as I listen to talks by someone like Scott Johnson and he takes it seriously. I stopped listening to him for a long time because he went over the edge too many times for me, but recently I've come back to listening again and have been hearing some talks I do appreciate -- such as his report on Maitreya's plans to appear soon with a "star" heralding the event, the series on the Hebrew Roots movement, and an older series on the tribe of Dan which he biblically documents very nicely (I'm not so sure about the earlier part of that series where he gets into the "Merovingian blood line").

However frustrated I get with him sometimes, I end up thinking that a great deal of what he has to say is necessary and useful information. As usual it's a matter of taking what's useful and throwing out the rest. I believe we are in the very last days and I didn't need him to tell me that. I've personally experienced some occultic phenomena that many Christians haven't, so I'm probably much more open to discussions of this sort of thing than others, and I think it's important to know about it in the last days, as we are told that the Antichrist will dazzle with false "signs and wonders," and anyone who doesn't know just how dazzling they can be may be deceived by them.

But the same people who track these things also have a distressing habit of getting off into the fringe areas where they function as little more than gossip hounds and fingerpointers.

O Watchman, clean those glasses (Cathy O'Brien's outrageous empty accusations)

In one of my posts about the Bohemian Grove I touched briefly on Scott Johnson's acceptance of the allegations by one Cathy O'Brien against many government leaders in her book, Trance: Formation of America. I decided to see if I could find out more so I went to You Tube and found a speech she gave divided into seven parts. I managed to get through five and a half at this point. If after posting this I listen to the rest and it substantially changes my view of things I'll be back to correct anything I say here that needs correction.

What's amazing about these videos is how much of absolutely nothing she actually says. She just rambles on and on in an abstract way about generalities. A lot of theoretical hoo ha about how the mind supposedly works, how mind control is possible with really nothing at all to show that she actually experienced anything of the sort. She speaks of all the "abuse" she experienced without giving a single fact you could pin it to.

Perhaps the biggest giveaway that this woman is mentally deranged is that her naming of names includes only BIG name politicians. No assistants or secretaries or second-stringers for her, no mere grunts in the service of the One World Order, they are all well known public figures she identifies as her acquaintances and tormenters. Why should such top-level people involve themselves with a mere guinea pig in some experiment, which is of course what she claims to have been. Why are there no names of subordinates at all?

If she actually heard George Romney talk about using mind control methods in global education (part 4), surely such a speech should be publicly available. Why doesn't she reference it? Or was this a private meeting in which he spoke only to a few special chosen such as herself?

Without identifying a single policy of Robert C. Byrd's she broadly claims
"He has made sure that more and more states' rights are lost. He manipulated the Constitution,"
but gives not a single quote, and makes not the slightest attempt to explain why she brings him up.

It's just a hodgepodge, in fact basically nothing more than a word salad of half-baked pseudoscience plus accusations against name after name, skipping from one to another with no point to any of it.
"The different criminal operations that I was forced to participate in during the Reagan-Bush administration are detailed in our book Trance Formation of America. That information was compiled for Congress as testimony."
Wouldn't you think a fact or two might nevertheless be forthcoming in a speech of such length as this one to support such an outrageous accusation as "criminal operations"?
"I've known Dick Cheney through Gerald Ford since 1975. He is the most brutal person I've ever encountered personally by far, but it's his attitude and his agenda that is so frightening." (part 6).
Wow, she gets away with that sort of general statement without the slightest attempt to back it up, and then she just goes rambling on to the next subject. And people take this woman seriously!
"I've known Bill Clinton since 1979 when he was governor of Arkansas ... through some CIA blackops ...cocaine operations going through Arkansas."
As with all her references to public figures in this part of the speech the information goes nowhere. She tosses out an allegation, really nothing more than namedropping, giving no more information than is already public knowledge, and passes on to something else.
"Schwarzenegger wants to change the Constitution to make it possible for himself to run for President. He's a good friend of Bush's."
Again, completely irrelevant information. No point to it, no context. Just throwing names out to smear them all with vague hints at terrible complicities in who knows what. She just skips from one thing to another. Again, it seems to be merely name-dropping.

She also heard "Bill Bennett" talk about this and that, worked with him she says.

Where are the people she accuses? Isn't it normal to expect that the accused be heard? Well, probably she's so obviously off center that nobody thinks she's worth answering. But at least shouldn't there be some whistleblowers against such craziness?

Or if they're her friends shouldn't they offer a word in her behalf?

Isn't it normal to expect that a FACT OR TWO be produced in support of an allegation of such terrible things as she imputes to various men? (And women, even Hillary Clinton apparently). DOES ANYBODY KNOW WHAT EVIDENCE IS ANY MORE?

You can even see her struggling for what to say next at times as she loses her thread of thought. She seems to count on being able to produce some sort of gobbledygook and she does indeed manage to do that but there are times when she looks a bit frightened that she doesn't know what to say next, but then she comes up with some more word salad and all is fine again. I think this must be because it's mostly made up, it's not from knowledge or even memory at all.

That anyone takes this stuff seriously is the tragedy here. This woman is seriously deluded. I think there is a medical category for her particular kind of derangement. "Delusions of grandeur" came to mind. Google led me to "megalomania" and "delusions of persecution." The entry at Wikipedia is being questioned but it is at least descriptive of what I was trying to get at. It's not a mental disorder in itself although it may be part of a psychosis.

The amazing thing is that anyone sat through over an hour's worth of her delusional ramblings, that anybody takes her seriously at all.

The Watchmen who have set themselves to expose frauds and delusions in these last days should be working to expose THIS sort of fraud instead of falling for such pernicious nonsense hook, line and sinker.

Unfortunately she's a very sad case and probably was abused. A few others doubt her testimony but apparently think she and her husband are doing it for money. My impression is that she's doing it for more psychological reasons. And for all I know there's a GRAIN of truth in some of her testimony but there is simply no way to find out because she's so untrustworthy a witness. In any case, her testimony is so far from reliable you have to start with protecting the victims of her accusations.

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Bohemian Grove Pt 3 & "watchman" type exposes in general

One last remark about the Bohemian Grove: It's none of our business. It's none of a Christian's business what people do on their vacations, whether they are the wealthy and powerful or anybody else. Hasn't it occurred to anyone that if such men are plotting political actions we object to they could do it anywhere, they don't need the Bohemian Grove for the purpose? High level political talks go on behind closed doors all the time, what's the big deal about some of them going on in the woods?

If it's the pagan ceremonies that bother you, it's SO clear that's just theatrical and nobody engaged in them believes they are invoking supernatural powers, but if anybody is, it's a very few who put on the show, the guests have nothing to do with it. Besides, this country is full of pagan rites of all sorts now anyway. If you want to kindly warn the guests that they might be exposing themselves to occultic influences that's fine, though I doubt they'd listen because they take it all for entertainment, but that's not what these self-appointed exposers are doing, they are fingerpointing at the attendees and even the invitees as if they are committing some sort of crime even to be on the BG's list.

I believe all this applies to the Skull and Bones society as well. How silly to make so much of the childish pranks of fraternity boys. Why should we be surprised if they play with devilish things -- the world is full of devilish things.

ON THE OTHER HAND: Exposing the occultic influence of Disney productions or Hollywood IS our business because they directly affect the public. Exposing heresies in Christian movements is our business because they can mislead Christians. Exposing the claims of anti-Christian religions and leaders is our business too, for the same reason. We are supposed to be watching for signs of the times, such as counterfeit Christs in these last days, to avoid being led astray. There are "watchman" ministries that focus on helping us do that, but some subjects they get into are not helpful toward that end.

When it comes to specific accusations of specific political leaders some who delve into these things are not fearful enough about smearing a person's reputation with little cause. They forget the Biblical rule of charity and that we are not to judge others, especially those who are not believers. These slandermongers have no sense of restraint, and believe the worst against a man on the flimsiest of evidence. Some of the most hideous accusations are made in these "ministries," so hideous that you'd think a person would want to think twice, three, four times before even hinting that they might be true. When proof is there, that's one thing, I'm talking about cases where the proof is mostly somebody's emotional "witness" and mere suspiciousness based on a few scattered impressions that can be misinterpreted.

I also have a problem with the claims about the Illuminati and that sort of thing. I don't know if half of what is said about this group is even half true. I just don't know. You'd think with all that's said about them I'd have a clearer idea but I don't. There's a lot of heat but little light, a lot of bald assertion backed up by little real evidence. "The Illuminati do this, the Illuminati do that." Where's the evidence? Some of the powers attributed to them are laughably beyond the human. Many assertions are made, but the quality of evidence is really questionable. I'm not sure it even matters, either. Why do we care if Satan has some powerful people in his employ? We know he has power in this world and for that matter power over all unsaved human beings. What good does it do us to know such specific things if true? All we are to do is live according to Christ. He didn't tell us to delve into the doings of the nonbelieving world.

Saturday, August 15, 2009

Bohemian Grove Pt. 2

I keep finding these feverishly serious discussions online -- apparently by Christians -- about the Bohemian Grove, as if it truly is believed that what goes on there is Satan-possessed world movers and shakers plotting the demise of us all to take over the world etc.

Hey, I have no doubt there are conspiracies in this world, perhaps some very high-level ones, I also have no doubt that many of our world leaders are determined to bring about the One World Order, I also have no doubt that Satan has his hand in these things, but you can't just go around taking mere appearances for fact the way so many are doing. Some people are misguided enough to think one world government is a good idea without feeling any need of participating in occultic rites to bring it about.

In the case of the Bohemian Grove, the productions of actors for the sake of entertainment, philosophical ponderings, and even just silly amusements are getting taken for reality in a way that would be laughable if it weren't that such suspicions contribute to the world's spiritual evils in themselves. Put "Bohemian Grove" in Google Image and you'll find many old pictures of theatrical events that have been staged there, including Shakespearean productions among others, all in full costume. There are also pictures of the supposedly "religious" ceremonies that get people so upset about satanic goings on, one for instance of "priests" and "cardinals" in robes kneeling before a cathedralish stage setting as some sort of ritual is enacted. Is it really a "Black Mass" as some say? Catholic ritual is a favorite subject of such mockery because of all its pomp and regalia, but some actually take such a performance as implying a serious Catholic influence among the participants or a serious satanic influence -- WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE?

In the context of the Bohemian Grove's founding by actors, and the many theatrical performances they put on during the summer event, WHY IS THIS TAKEN FOR ANYTHING MORE THAN JUST ANOTHER THEATRICAL PRODUCTION?

They may think they are making a profound moral statement in their productions, or they may simply be performing a mockery of religion. They probably do both at this summer event. Mockery of religion is FUN for some people in this fallen world. There is also the fact that sometimes a pseudo-solemn religious enactment is intended to capture what worldlings wrongly think is the essence of religion, ritual itself, for the sake of comfort or a sort of therapy, although nothing in it is taken for genuine reality. Don't we know this about fallen human nature by now?

I don't know how all this is taken, it's just obvious it's theatrical and not intended as a religious rite as such. I'm not arguing that all this is "just good clean fun" either. They are worldly entertainments with a worldly philosophy behind them, and there is also apparently a big homosexual presence there, among the actors at least (which is often associated with false religion). I'm just saying it's not serious Satanic invocation. It's metaphor or symbolism of psychological and philosophical import to some people. That's bad enough. Don't reify it and compound the problem.

As for the secrecy, I can't think of it as any more sinister than wanting to keep a private men's club private.

From the Wikipedia article:

Many of the notable participants have been politically conservative, leading conspiracy theorists to speculate that the club is actually being used as a meeting place to secretly determine important public policies. However, the majority of the members and guests who are targets of such attacks meet only over the middle weekend of the encampment, and the club largely remains a haven for artists and art lovers. [Also at the link there's a description of an event by an attendee that gives the flavor of the place -- an attempt to recreate an actual Druidic rite -- again, as theater -- along with plenty of pranks and practical jokes]

"High jinks" and "low jinks" are terms the club uses to describe its events:
HIGH JINKS: antic, caper, escapade, frolic, fun, horseplay, larks, mischief, monkey business, monkeyshines, practical joke, prank, shenanigans, stunt, tomfoolery
It has some of the flavor of the Renaissance Faire, also a theatrical event, in which costumed actors go about recreating a Renaissance festival where you can get interestingly different "fast food" and watch Shakespearean performances in the setting of a Renaissance village. This IS more like "good clean fun" than the Burning Man event I mentioned as comparison in my last post on the Bohemian Grove. The Faires are fun entertainments, which is all I think the BG performances are meant to be. But they ARE worldly entertainments so leave it at that. There's no need to invoke demons on top of it.

Later: I posted this news report from 1981 about the Grove at the other blog entry on this subject but I think I'll repost it here, because it's a lot more realistic than all the conspiracy stuff about the place:

Friday, August 14, 2009

What IS health care all about, really? A worldly system versus God's provision.

I got this link to a point by point discussion of President Obamas's town hall statements on the health care bill from Z's blog. This is the best and clearest presentation of the problems I've seen -- everyone should read it. It's a rational discussion of just what insurance is all about, no matter who's in charge, and keeps in perspective the undesirability of having the government be the insuring party.

There are complicated calculations involved in any insurance carrier's decision about what to insure and what not to, what to pay for when a claim is made and what not to, based on the economics of the situation. This can't be avoided no matter who runs the insurance. But if there are many insurance carriers to choose from, you can at least choose according to which of them support your own main concerns best. If the government is your only choice you're going to have to accept whatever the government decides, and if you happen to be opposed to, say, coverage for abortion, you might not have a choice but to support it against your will. I'm not saying that's a problem with this bill, I haven't heard that about it, but I'm trying to make a general point. If your concerns are the best kind of coverage for the problems of the elderly, again you can choose among the carriers if there are many to choose from; with the government you have to accept whatever they say the elderly are allowed. And so on.

I'm admittedly barely educated on this and have very little understanding or for that matter patience with the calculations involved in these things. I tend to throw up my hands and say, Oh well, if I can't afford it I'll just have to lump it; if I die I die.

But I think I do grasp the overall situation here. Insurance is an attempt to guarantee expensive medical care to people who can't or don't want to pay for it if it becomes needed. It's a form of gambling. You pay in monthly at what is hoped to be a reasonably low rate so that if you contract a very expensive disease, what you will have paid in won't amount to much of a proportion of what the treatment costs and yet the service providers will be paid fairly. Insurance carriers gamble that the majority of payers will remain healthy and their monthly premiums will subsidize a minority of serious medical needs of a few payers over the long haul.

Unfortunately medical care has become prodigiously expensive in the last decades so that monthly premiums are still too high for a great swath of the population these days. People complain about this but it's ridiculous to complain. The economics of the situation is what determines these things, not people trying to make life hard for other people (although irrational laws can accomplish a lot toward making life hard). But along comes government at this point to promise coverage in spite of economic reality. They even call health care a "right" in blatant defiance of simple reality.

This is the basis for the government reform of health care, that most people can no longer afford insurance. There is no WAY they can afford it either, under ANY health care bill that takes economic reality into account, unless others subsidize them at that level too. When government takes over insurance the situation switches. In the hands of the government it's no longer the healthy who are subsidizing the sick, it's the wealthy who are subsidizing the poor.

This is socialized medicine.

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. -------Thomas Jefferson

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Private insurance companies cannot do this, can't do it practically or legally, but the government can because they can tax us. Private insurance companies depend on a high ratio of the healthy to the sick to have the money to finance the services they are willing to cover. When a great number of people can't afford their rates and the government steps in, now TAXES enter into the financing of services. The greater the need the higher the taxes, and of course the richer will be taxed more than others, the poor not at all in some cases(which is already the case).

There is of course a limit to how much can be taxed out of us so just as with private insurance carriers costs have to be cut somewhere. Where they are cut is a lot of what is controversial about this current health care bill.

We already have socialism to a great extent. It's manifestly unjust to take money from some to finance the needs of others, but that's the way the world is going. We're already half way there; Obama wants to take us further down that road. Private insurance isn't quite so unethical because everybody knows they're gambling and they can choose to take the gamble or not. But under goverment insurance, if the plan really could pay for needed services, it could only do it by extracting a LOT more money from the wealthy for the purpose. If it can't get away with that, it can only do it by cutting services drastically, making health care a nightmare for a majority of the people, spreading not only the wealth but the inconvenience and sometimes the medical negligence of it all, which Canadians and others object to in their own socialized systems, which drives those with complicated medical problems to the USA for our much superior medical services, possibly about to become our late-lamented services.

Perhaps I've misunderstood some of this and I'll try to learn more if the opportunity presents itself.

Meanwhile I've lately developed an objection to insurance as such, from a Christian point of view. It IS gambling. And anything that costs more than you can afford is not a "right." Gambling is bad enough but socialized medicine is downright pernicious. If it weren't for the complicated economic system of health care delivery, care for the suffering would be a VOLUNTARY gift given by those who had the means to those who need them. VOLUNTARY giving is the only RIGHT way to do this. Any form of forced "giving" such as taxation, on the other hand, is criminal.

Unfortunately we have become so used to the system we live under and so passive in the face of it, the very idea of a voluntary system has dropped out of view except for a few who have the wealth to help some people without even feeling the crunch. In the early days of Christianity there were many acts of mercy performed by the followers of Christ, ordinary followers with minimal incomes, often self-sacrificially. It was common for unwanted babies to be exposed to die, but Christians would take them in and care for them and raise them. The sick were also left to die in the streets, and again Christians would take them in and care for them. Eventually Christians developed orphanages to care for rejected or parentless children, and hospitals for the sick. This all started from Holy-Spirit-inspired Christian compassion, without expectation of monetary reward, strictly in service to God. It has since grown into this gigantic social institution that is run for profit and no longer by Christians. In a sense the unbelieving world is trying to do on a wordly economic basis what Christians originally did in obedience to God. That's really what Marxism is too, the aping of Christ by the corrupt fallen nature on the basis of worldly thought, and historically it's always led to unimaginable horrors because it has the wrong foundation.

I think Christians need to rethink all this. I think Christians need to find a way to opt out of the government system if at all possible, as receivers at least if we can't as payers, trust in God, and focus ourselves on taking care of each other one way or another. I think if we set our minds to do this, refuse everything that amounts to gambling (it's a substitute for faith), think in terms of self-sacrifice, do it all with constant prayer for God's guidance and provision, we could revolutionize the care of the suffering just as the early Christians did. I don't know what form this would take, I'm admittedly short on specifics and long on theology, and I also feel uncomfortable proposing anything along these lines because at the moment I'm more likely to be a candidate for the care than for the self-sacrificial giving, but I pray God won't let me stay in this situation but will put me in a position to be of use to others in spite of my lack of means. He can do that. "All things are possible with God." Anything done in His power transcends all human effort. It starts with Christians seeking God for direction and power.

Thursday, August 13, 2009


I just listened through the eight speeches at the "reality check" link my friend sent me, that purport to correct what the White House labels as misinformation about the Health Care Proposal. The gist of the messages is that it's just bad people making stuff up against the good Health Care proposal, just "the same old people" who don't want to see Health Care reformed.

Why anyone would not want Health Care reform isn't mentioned -- what's the motivation? but nameless bad people are accused of simply just not wanting it for no good reason. Oh, maybe because they have some meaningless idea about "socialized medicine."

Who are the stupid ones here?

Obviously reform is needed, but people are concerned about THIS health care reform, and it seems to me they are RIGHTLY concerned.

The WH representatives are insinuating something irrational, when it sounds to me like there are many legitimate questions AND THEY ARE BASED ON WHAT IS ACTUALLY WRITTEN IN THE HEALTH CARE PROPOSAL.


GO LISTEN TO IT YOURSELF, FIND A FACT IN IT FROM ANY OF THEM. THERE AREN'T ANY. There are plenty of DECLARATIONS that such and such is fact, but no actual facts themselves. (If you aren't sure what's a fact and what isn't, run it by me, I'll happily explain it to you).

If people are wrong about this proposal, we aren't going to find that out through empty rhetoric, and this note of accusation of the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES for raising meaningless objections, that is coming out of this Reality Check page, only adds to the reasons to distrust them.

They promise us everything: They promise Medicare will not be cut; they promise Vet benefits will not be cut; they promise that the elderly will not be deprived of necessary care; they promise doctors will be paid in accord with their expertise; they promise you can keep your own insurance plan if you like it, etc., etc., etc. They promise you everything, but, again,

There is NO discussion of the actual written provisions in the bill that would demonstrate whether these things are ACTUALLY spelled out in it, or how it's going to be financed, OR if it's even POSSIBLE to provide for all that, given economic and medical realities.

EVEN WITH THE BEST INTENTIONS IN THE WORLD, SOME THINGS ARE SIMPLY NOT POSSIBLE. Why do we have a health care problem anyway? PARTLY because some things are simply not possible economically, not because "some people" don't want us to have decent health care.

They are certainly right to point out that the current health care situation is not as good as we'd like it to be, BUT THEY ARE NOT GIVING EVIDENCE THAT THIS PARTICULAR REFORM IS GOING TO BE BETTER FOR ALL OF US. Maybe it will be better for some, but much worse for others. How is this going to be discovered when we aren't given the actual facts?



Here's the White House Reality Check link again.

Health Care Reform and Big Brother continued.

I sent an email out about my experience of having a news video removed from my blog post the other day, which said roughly the following:

Anybody out there experiencing mysterious internet interferences lately? I've heard of others -- conservatives -- who have been. A few days ago I couldn't access my Yahoo email account and kept getting a strange excuse for an explanation, but I think it is very possibly because I had just emailed something about this healthcare insanity and am now on Big Brother's list. OR maybe it's just a technical glitch but . . .

I just embedded a perfectly mainstream (CNN) video at my blog -- no hidden information there but they only want THEIR view of it all to be reported? -- and it won't function, appears to have beeen removed, leaving a big red square in its place. A couple paragraphs I wrote after it about how American freedoms are being trashed disappeared too. Maybe it's just a technical glitch but . . .

COULD just be a technical glitch, sure, but we conservatives know that we have REAL enemies out there who don't believe in American freedoms and are very willing to censor and oppress ordinary American citizens.

I think people could very well start disappearing soon. Yep, I think this government is that evil. Those swastikas going up here and there are no doubt bad form, certainly in bad taste, and they are being misrepresented against us too, but they do represent the mentality of these thugs.

Maybe you won't begin to see it UNTIL people start disappearing, but I sure hope there are still liberals out there who can and will yet wake up.

I'd love to find out that this is merely paranoia, and of course "they" would make it out to be that in any case, but there have been threats of an internet crackdown on conservative blogs, blog servers actually threatening to shut some down. People are being told to report hostile remarks about the healthcare mess to the President against every tenet of civility and specifically against the US Constitution, but they don't care about American freedoms. We're almost a third world dictatorship now, so NOTHING should be put past them. At least one conservative blogger on my list couldn't access her email at all for a couple days

If they are red-flagging certain words that occur in emails you can bet this one is going to be red-flagged. Never thought you'd be living under the KGB or the Gestapo in America, did you?
COULD all just be rumors and glitches. How can one find out?

I got some emails in agreement but also got this back from one friend:

I haven't read the proposal -- if I did I wouldn't understand it well enough anyway -- so I can't offer any critique (I wonder how many of us can). At any rate, here it is [the White House's debunkery of the arguments against it]:

This is my answer:
I don't understand it either, all I know is that conservative blogs are buzzing about how the government is not telling the truth about what the healthcare bill will really do, and this is what is causing the protests at the town meetings. The protestors are being falsely called a "mob" although their behavior is perfectly orderly, and also misrepresented as simply wanting to hold on to the status quo, a rather strange accusation since medical care isn't in such great shape now either, but people don't want to lose whatever benefits they do get from it compared to what the new bill may take away from them. But this misrepresentation is repeated at the link you give. It doesn't look like they are doing any more than repeating the party line.

The fact is many honest citizens believe they have good reason to protest an economically and medically dangerous proposal. There is also supposedly a hot line for people to complain to the President himself about anyone who speaks against the bill, which if true is a very sinister development, and some bloggers have also complained that their blog servers have been threatening them over their political content on this subject. It's true I haven't researched this myself and I hope the facts will sort themselves out eventually.

The extreme rush and the bullying that is going on in the drive to push this enormous unwieldy bill through before anyone has a chance to assess it properly is also a very bad sign.

All I know personally is that when I used the CNN-supplied code to embed a standard news video at my blog, of a man complaining at a town hall meeting, it was jerked away from my blog never to reappear, leaving a big red blank in its place, and its removal also took out a few paragraphs of my own about violations of American freedoms I could find absolutely no way of reinstating. That was an extremely disconcerting experience.

I'll pass your link on to those who are more embroiled in this than I am, however, and see what they have to say.

Thanks for taking the time to look it up.
I've now looked at more of the "debunkery" information at the link. Yes, it's just the party line. They accuse the "health industry" of trumping it all up etc. My experience is that it's just ordinary people getting upset about what they understand to be in the bill. And even if some of it is from insurance companies, and particularly doctors, shouldn't their input matter? The White House's simply telling people they're wrong without a careful discussion of the facts is NOT going to reassure them and it shouldn't. The complaints against this bill do involve apparently objective information. And it is a huge bill. Time should be taken to be sure it is what it should be.


The rush itself is reason to be suspicious of it.

Wednesday, August 12, 2009

Come on, Dr. Scott Johnson, get some perspective on The Bohemian Grove (and the Skull & Bones)

OK, I've been listening to Scott Johnson again. So frustrating. He'll do some series covering useful information about various heresies that fly under the Christian banner, such as a recent one on the Hebrew Roots movement, or consciously deceptive occultic phenomena such as Benjamin Creme and Maitreya, or on what UFOs really are and so on -- all things to think about as the last days progress -- but then he'll veer off into a topic like the Bohemian Grove in which he loses all perspective, seems to have no idea what constitutes true evidence, and joins the fringe group of accusers who give a bad name to Christians.

Here's what seems to me to be a fairly objective news report on the organization, from 1981:

Because of this tendency of his I have to suspect that his stuff in general should be taken with a grain of salt even on topics for which you can find solid Christian criticism elsewhere. Ten years ago by now there was information available about the heresy of the Hebrew Roots movement, for instance, and I've personally encountered people in that movement myself and some of their bizarre unbiblical beliefs, so I'm happy to see Johnson discuss it in some detail and give quotations to expose its unbiblical teachings. But Johnson also often gets off into decoding symbols, such as the six-pointed "star of David," beyond their historically traceable occultic associations, into accusing people of PRACTICING the occultism they most likely know nothing about. I don't doubt that Satan's hand is in just about everything that draws people away from the true revelation of God, but that doesn't mean the people in a particular group are consciously involved in it. Yet he tends to talk in strident condemnatory tones about these things even if there is no evidence that a symbol is functioning that way for the users of it. He often gives interesting information about the occultic meaning of a symbol but his attitude tends to be that if that's what the symbol historically means then they are practicing that meaning whether they know it or not.

I don't know if that's true or not. He's claimed it many times -- also in regard to so-called "cursed objects" -- but if a person isn't attributing occultic powers to a symbol what's the evidence that the symbol has any power simply on its own to affect him? I have to say that in my own experience mere symbols CAN radiate an occultic power, but I've experienced it as a discordant and abrasive or repellent force, as I think other Christians also must if they are sensitive to them, but not all are sensitive to them. Whether such symbols exert any actual power over a person I don't know, but if he wants to WARN them of this, it would help if he'd offer some evidence of a real danger instead of merely asserting it. I'd like to hear a good evidenced discussion of "cursed objects" myself.

For the most part his discussions of those things appear to be informative and useful, however. But now he's talking about The Bohemian Grove and this is a different kind of territory that needs a different kind of treatment and his methods become very questionable. There's nothing Christian about it so it isn't a heresy. There's nothing even religious about it, so you can't really discuss any symbolism in it the way you can discuss the Masonic symbols. It's not an occultic discipline where supernatural occurrences can be expected as expressions of Satan. Yet all of the above is how it is getting treated by Johnson and some others.

It's a fraternity, similar to the Skull and Bones club which he also discussed a while back and treated the same way.

World leaders go to these things, so their rituals, and especially their secrecy, can appear to have a lot of sinister implications, especially in this time of the end, but he takes what are not PROVABLY anything more than sinister implications and treats them as fact and reality. He almost puts heads of state on the same plane as, oh, Aleister Crowley or Madame Blavatsky, although all he has to go on is their attendance at and enjoyment of these fraternal groups, and some facts about the entertainments provided at their events, in which dark occultic rituals are supposedly discerned.

At the summer three-week camp-out at Bohemian Grove, there's a ritual of "human sacrifice" for instance, involving an effigy of a dead body (it "speaks" but it's called a "dead" body), that they call "the Cremation of Care," a metaphor for doing away with the cares and worries of their stressed lives for the duration of the event. The effigy is named Dull Care. As you can see from the picture to the right, taken in the early days of the club, it had pretty primitive origins, but in more recent years it's acquired some sophisticated trappings, involving some symbols of pagan religion and its gods, a high priest in robes and pointy hat, fireworks and a huge bonfire, pompous words, appeals to the huge owl statue "deity" and so on.

This ritual originated as part of a play or musical production the group puts on every year during this event, from its earliest days over a hundred years ago. The paganesque ritual was originally part of the play but got moved to the first day of the event, according to Wikipedia, where it now does function as a mock religious invocation of blessing and exorcism of cares and worries for the gathering.

The event in the California redwoods was originally a party for the Bohemian Club, which was founded in San Francisco in 1872. The club was started by a group of San Francisco actors. ACTORS. Actors like to act. They like to put on plays. They do a number of performances at different locations within the Bohemian Grove during the summer camp, which is a grove of huge California redwoods that is part of Muir Woods.

At one early camp they put on a play that included a mock pagan sacrifice. It took on a life of its own over the years. Is this the same thing as the practice of witchcraft, as Johnson and others say? REALLY?

Well, they do indeed say such things.

Apparently somebody named Alex Jones crashed a Bohemian Grove event and filmed this Cremation of Care, and has been going around accusing the members of this club of sinister intentions -- and even mere invitees who have never attended. The film at You Tube shows the "sacrifice" or Cremation to be a huge bonfire with men in robes standing around like priests, in which a wooden effigy is burned, but rather than recognize it as a dramatic production, they treat it as an actual pagan ritual involving the demon god Moloch in the figure of a 40-foot statue of an owl (although in historical reality there was never any connection between Moloch and the owl).

Johnson spends much time detailing the meaning of the symbolism of the giant owl statue, which takes him off into connections between the owl and various goddesses starting with the evil Lilith. Lore of Lilith is explored, a demonic entity connected with Satan, in occultic tales the first wife of Adam, with various spinoffs in goddesses of many cultures and so on and so forth. She's a succubus spirit that is assocated with the owl, whose symbolism is also explored, and with the killing of babies, abortion, etc. etc. etc. He also goes into the meaning of Moloch, although he was unable to find any connection between Moloch and owls. All of this is more or less interesting in itself but you have to ask what it has to do, really, with these wealthy and powerful men cavorting about the California redwoods for a few weeks in the summer. You SHOULD ask yourself that very seriously. He doesn't ask it, he simply ASSUMES that if such symbolism can be found in occultic lore, if you can associate an evil goddess with an owl idol and so on and so forth, then you've found The True Evil Reason for the gathering. He doesn't seem to question it for a moment, just as his sources on the subject of the Bohemian Grove don't. Jones and Johnson are not alone among Christians in this turning of art (however silly, however bad) into reality.

This is ridiculous, perniciously ridiculous. Typical nineteenth-century rationalist mentality was probably the mindset of the early attendees, which included an attitude of anti-religion of all sorts unless it was vaguely deistic in some cases. The owl would simply represent knowledge or wisdom to such men. A giant owl statue would naturally lend itself as "deity" in a mock pagan ritual of some sort once it entered their minds to enact one. It's mockery, it's jokery, it's tongue in cheek. This is typical sophomoric or high-school level "high jinks" to use a slang term from the era of the BG's founding -- and that's what they call their performances, High Jinks and Low Jinks, according to the Wikipedia article. From a Christian point of view there's evil enough in such antics and certainly nothing to be praised in any of it, but we're talking about UNBELIEVERS, here (perhaps some nominal "Christians" -- same thing) and we should at least try to get THEIR take on it. They don't BELIEVE in Satan, they don't BELIEVE there's anything to pagan rites or anything else that invokes a real supernatural. It's all drama to them, or maybe a kind of "therapy."

That Wikipedia article has a sane comment on the Jones view of it:
On July 15, 2000, Austin, Texas-based filmmaker Alex Jones and his cameraman, Mike Hanson, infiltrated the Grove. With a hidden camera, Jones and Hanson were able to film the Cremation of Care ceremony. The footage was the centerpiece of Jones' documentary Dark Secrets: Inside Bohemian Grove.[21] Jones claimed that the Cremation of Care was an "ancient Canaanite, Luciferian, Babylon mystery religion ceremony," and that the owl statue was Moloch. The Grove and Jones' investigation were covered by Jon Ronson in Channel 4's four-part documentary, Secret Rulers of the World. Ronson documented his view of the ritual in his book, Them: Adventures With Extremists, writing that it was a startling, immature, and bizarre way for world leaders to spend their summer vacations, but that he did not see evidence of covert Satanism. According to his description of the account it was nothing more than a fraternity-esque ritual, and the only reason one could see it as Satanic was if one were looking for Satanism in it to begin with.
Well said: A "startling, immature and bizarre way for world leaders to spend their summer vacations." Indeed. For sure. Comment on THAT for starters! But Satanism, overt or covert? THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THAT. It's all silly adolescent mockery, blasphemous at times no doubt but Satanic? THAT idea is silly, and it's unbecoming of CHRISTIANS to make such unreasonable and uncharitable accusations.

Again, I'm not even going to insist that it's perfectly innocent. Even a mock pagan ritual could attract not-so-mock demonic spirits. But we're surrounded by them all the time anyway, and they know how to seduce people without any ritual involved at all.

As an event, the Bohemian camp-out reminds me of the far more truly pagan Burning Man event which takes place every August on the backside of the Nevada desert, that concludes a few days of hippie style carryings-on with the burning of a gigantic wooden effigy of a man. They even name their separate camps in a way that suggests they took the Bohemian Grove as part of their model. It's a sort of poor-man's Bohemian Grove, also heavy on "art," some clever, some, well... [there's some partial nudity in those pictures at the link, by the way, pretty mild, but just so you know] but it's hippieish and "psychedelic" in atmosphere, harking back to the 60s rather than the 1890s of the BG, it's not secret, and it's for both sexes. I suspect many TRULY knowledgeable occultists attend Burning Man, Wiccans and so on (though of course they think it's all innocent stuff too), while someone with that kind of knowledge simply must be a rarity if not altogether nonexistent among the membership of the Bohemian Grove.

Even if attendees at the Bohemian Grove might possibly be affected by any such supernatural influences, I have to surmise based on what they convey in their public lives that they themselves don't regard any of it as supernatural anyway. ALL THE SIGNS ARE THAT THEY DO NOT. They sincerely regard it as merely a club, a gathering for recreation and socializing. There are interviews with some of them at You Tube, forced on them by these paranoid accusers, sad to say, by accosting them on the street or calling in to their talk shows, but it is clear from how they answer that they find the whole idea repulsive and ridiculous. Just listen to them. You can find them all at You Tube. Get the Alex Jones "expose" video up and the rest should show up in the column to the right. Actually, most of these have never attended a BG event, though they have been invited: These include David Gergen, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, ex-President Bush, ex-President Clinton. THEY ARE BEING HONEST, and all the suspiciousness and insinuation against them is uncalled for. Gergen denounces the infiltration of the Grove, Hannity calls the accusations insane, Rush laughs, Bush asks for a rational discussion to clear things up, Clinton has the guy removed from the meeting and so on. But those who are of a mind to accuse them hear something else in their statements. Any objection, sense of offense or outright denial is always going to be read by such an accusing mentality as a confirmation, such is their twisted logic.

Really, all you have to do is know something about the public personality of any of these people by having watched them on TV and anybody who has a normal ability to read character, who has a sane understanding of how people work, can't possibly think they are guilty of Satan worship. Trying to link what I know about the personalities involved with the insinuations against them is an exercise in cognitive dissonance to the point of absurdity.

I EMPHASIZE: The kind of people who go to the Bohemian Grove generally DON'T BELIEVE IN THAT SUPERNATURAL STUFF. They think it's all psychological metaphor.

In this discussion of the Bohemian Grove, Johnson mentions a book called Trance Formation of America by one Cathy O'Brien who claims to have experienced mind control and been exploited at the Bohemian Grove. I looked the book up at Amazon and COME ON, Mr. Johnson, if you read the reasonable One-Star reviews of that book (as opposed to the pantingly convinced 5-star reviews) you have to see that her allegations LACK EVIDENCE. You have to have EVIDENCE for such claims. You can't just rattle off your personal experience and expect that to suffice. You could have made it up or half dreamed it or who knows what. YOU NEED EVIDENCE, which according to the reviews it should be easy enough to produce if the story is true. Wikipedia also questions the credibility of the book. And unfortunately Scott Johnson's acceptance of it also speaks against his credibility.

Johnson seems to have a strange gap in his understanding of what constitutes evidence as he gullibly falls for things of this sort, and even CALLS THEM "DOCUMENTATION." (Gee, if it's written on paper isn't that documentation?) No, Dr. Johnson, that is NOT documentation. (in the case of Cathy O'Brien he claims he discovered the same information in research on his own as she reports in her book, but without the objective documentation that MUST be available if the witness is true, that doesn't count for anything either). And you are definitely guilty of slander of many people because you are not careful about such things. Talk to the Lord about it -- honestly.

Wow, Big Brother's breathing down my little neck

How interesting. I used their own code to embed the video in the post below but it appears they have decided to exercise their Leftist-rationalized censorship of dissent to remove it and also prevent me posting anything else in that box. ("They" = CNN and friends)

Let's see if this will post.

Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Speech, Freedom from tyranny, HA!

Could be a technical glitch I suppose. But then wouldn't the embedded video reappear?

Monday, August 10, 2009

Outrageous Obama-led destruction of American freedoms over the Health Care Reform

To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical. -------Thomas Jefferson

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

I gave up thinking about and commenting on politics some time ago, but I want at least to register here my solidarity with the protest against the healthcare proposal coming out of the Obama administration.

Unfortunately, in the mind of this administration it is no longer a Constitutionally protected American right to voice dissent to the government's actions. What they are calling the ordinary people who are protesting is outrageous. They speak of these orderly demonstrations as a "mob." People boo speakers at a political gathering and it is treated as unruly mob behavior. If the LEFT does such things, and they do far worse -- just ask conservative speakers such as David Horowitz -- that's just dissent, but let the Right say a word and it becomes an unruly "mob." They are turning the Constitution on its head, treating this orderly citizen dissent as if it were something criminal.

This has always been the mentality of the Left. We've objected to it for years. Now it has the power to enforce its outrageous anti-Constitutional behavior.

I do have the question whether they are really so delusional that they sincerely do not recognize their own injustice and anti-American attitude, but do regard dissent as criminal behavior, thanks to their blind allegiance to their own partisan politics; or it's calculated, just part of the typical cynical consciously anti-American fascistic program to discredit the opposition. I really do have this question. I can think of some for whom it must be sincerely misbegotten, the product of a leftist-twisted education, others I wonder about.

Since I did say I was staying away from politics I'm not up on this enough to say much more. I've seen the news here and there and checked some conservative sources, but that's about it. I'll try to get some links up to fill in the gaps soon.


Here's What seems like a fair article on the situation:

LEBANON, Pa. - They booed and taunted Sen. Arlen Specter (D., Pa.), calling him a tyrant, as anger at the Democrats' proposed overhaul of the health-care system boiled over yesterday at a pair of town-hall meetings.

"This country is turning into Russia," one man said in a common refrain, standing toe to toe with Specter in a hall at the Harrisburg Area Community College campus here. Chants broke out - "You work for us!" and "Read the bill!" - as the senator tried to answer questions.

Later in the day, Specter faced similar frustrations from skeptical voters in Lewisburg in an auditorium at Bucknell University. In both places, most of the questioners stayed civil but accused President Obama, Specter, and other congressional Democrats of trying to force a government takeover of health care that would violate their constitutional rights as well as the character of the nation.

...Several speakers at both town halls said they resented how Democrats had branded them as "mobs" whipped up by special interests.

And here's a video showing your "angry mob," an American citizen who wanted to speak but was made to leave.

Embedded video from CNN Video
12:49 AM HOW INTERESTING. I used their own code for embedding the video and they seem to have decided to prevent me from displaying it. Do they have no respect for anything or anybody any more? That video was put out there by their own henchmen; it's all over the place by now. Oh but I guess if the KGB wants something to disappear it will disappear.
Have their partisan preoccupations so overtaken their reason that they allow themselves to be the very tyrants the fathers of this nation tried to protect us from? Afraid so, folks. Freedom of the Press, ha! The Press is now merely an instrument of the big fat oppressor Government the founders tried to limit. Oh and they get SO upset if you call them Nazis, after years and years of calling our side Nazi. Can dish it out but can't take it. Ah, but it's worse than that. Their tyrannical Big Brother Agenda is showing.

But finally, conservatives have been pushed far enough to make use of our Constitutional freedoms to some extent, I hope not too late.

Tuesday, August 4, 2009

Yet Another New Blog

Now I'm starting to collect more information about end times prophecy, and it seems to need a place of its own, so welcome to END TIMES MONITOR.